Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds that the question is answered once and not kept, that answers come from the same facts as the website, and that a daily limit exists with an explicit signal when hit. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing answer format or latency, which is a minor gap only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does before the usage routing and the limitations. Every clause carries information — verb, scope, read-only behavior, sibling routing, exclusions, rate limit — with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by saying it returns an answer grounded in the website's facts, plus how the daily-limit failure surfaces. For a one-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its purpose and length bounds, so the description need not repeat it. The description reinforces the cardinality constraint (one question) but adds no detail the schema lacks.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("asks Portaur's own assistant one question about Portaur and returns its answer") and scopes it to Portaur-only content. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read tools by saying it is for questions the others do not answer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this only for a question the other read tools do not answer, which directly contrasts with siblings like about_portaur, list_services and pricing_approach. It also gives exclusion conditions — no prices, one question per call — so the agent knows when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.